Jump to content

DCS world 2 preview (WW2)

TWC_Ace

By TWC_Ace
in Free Subject

 Share

Recommended Posts

Urra

Urra

Posted
Posted

Wait 5-10 years and you'll have the Straight of Hormuz to play with!  ;)

In a few years, we will have families that had more than one generation waiting for a product release. Grand pappy bought the pre-release, grand kids finally get into the beta...

  • Upvote 5
Guest deleted@50488

Guest deleted@50488

Posted
Posted

In a few years, we will have families that had more than one generation waiting for a product release. Grand pappy bought the pre-release, grand kids finally get into the beta...

:lol:

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

There is a big speculation that is more than a speculation that they will go for Pacific, starting with F4U. Than would be a Zero or something else. Even though it's not helping with Normandy, I cant complain. A DCS Zero is something I'd buy more than once  :biggrin:

Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

In the meantime DCS P-40F by VEAO ... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147379

Hopefully they will finish it before Christmas...

Wait. Wasn't that scheduled for September release? Seriously, when is anything DCS related not delayed? :(

 

I was so looking forward to this coming out at the same time as the BoM P-40, so we could really compare the two.

Chuck_Owl

Chuck_Owl

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Finkeren

 

Migrating to a new DCS engine might create some unforeseen issues. You can't just copy-paste the code for a module in DCS 1.2.16 to 1.5 without having some fixing to do in the process.

 

Plus, don't forget that VEAO mentioned that they were re-doing the whole cockpit textures for the P-40 and the Hawk as well.

 

Personally, I don't mind that they (the devs) take some extra time in order to polish the module for release. They need to get this release right.

Edited by Chuck_Owl
  • Upvote 1
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Personally, I don't mind that they (the devs) take some extra time in order to polish the module for release. They need to get this release right.

That one is actually fine, better to release a finished product than rush then unfinished one. 

  • Upvote 1
6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka

Posted
Posted

Some 3rd party dev once posted a pic of a Corsair in DCS but I cant remember who. Pacific would be a nice suprise and sth to look well ahead to (maybe even more than Normandy).

You can't go more harcore than doing carrier landings with a F4U in DCS can you? :P

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Some 3rd party dev once posted a pic of a Corsair in DCS but I cant remember who. Pacific would be a nice suprise and sth to look well ahead to (maybe even more than Normandy).

You can't go more harcore than doing carrier landings with a F4U in DCS can you? :P

Leatherneck Simulations, thats what I was talking above. 

9./JG27golani79

9./JG27golani79

Posted
Posted

I´m still hoping for a Zero from Leatherneck Simulations - would be really nice! :)

SCG_Space_Ghost

SCG_Space_Ghost

Posted
Posted

In a few years, we will have families that had more than one generation waiting for a product release. Grand pappy bought the pre-release, grand kids finally get into the beta...

 

I LOL'd at that one.  :lol:

Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

@Finkeren

 

Migrating to a new DCS engine might create some unforeseen issues. You can't just copy-paste the code for a module in DCS 1.2.16 to 1.5 without having some fixing to do in the process.

 

Plus, don't forget that VEAO mentioned that they were re-doing the whole cockpit textures for the P-40 and the Hawk as well.

 

Personally, I don't mind that they (the devs) take some extra time in order to polish the module for release. They need to get this release right.

I don't mind occassional delays and obviously I agree that software should only be released when it's ready (I won't say 'done' because when are a piece of software ever 'done' in this day and age)

 

However, my experience with DCS over the last few years has been that significant delays is the rule rather than the exception, not just in the current transitional period.

 

Btw: I think it was a good call to redo the cockpit for the P-40F. The WIP shots looked sub-par for DCS and inferior to the BoM P-40 also.

SharpeXB

SharpeXB

Posted
Posted

2GB has turned into the standard these days, but as far as I am concerned, there are other subjects that are more important to me, and a flight simulator isn't really only the graphics... which, even still using Dx9.0c, Il2 masters.

The Steam Hardware Survey shows 47% have 2GB of VRAM or higher.

SharpeXB

SharpeXB

Posted
Posted

I find myself wondering why DCS WWII Europe 1944 picked Normandy as the area to map. Obviously the big event there in 1944 was D-Day except that wasn't an air battle. As far as I know the Luftwaffe was pretty much cleared from the skies at that point. They were all home defending the Reich. THAT'S the scenario for the P-51D and Fw 190D to slug it out in.

Feathered_IV

Feathered_IV

Posted
Posted

I find myself wondering why DCS WWII Europe 1944 picked Normandy as the area to map. Obviously the big event there in 1944 was D-Day except that wasn't an air battle. As far as I know the Luftwaffe was pretty much cleared from the skies at that point. They were all home defending the Reich. THAT'S the scenario for the P-51D and Fw 190D to slug it out in.

I couldn't see the logic in that either. Maybe it was an imperfect grasp of history on the part of the person who chose it.

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Well, that was weird. But even more weird was a decision to push for a D-9 and K-4, which were not present out there. It would make a lot more sense to make up Northern France 1942-1943 with all those Spitfires, 190 A, P-51s, P-38s and so on ... 

BeastyBaiter

BeastyBaiter

Posted
Posted

In a few years, we will have families that had more than one generation waiting for a product release. Grand pappy bought the pre-release, grand kids finally get into the beta...

 

What's really funny (and sad) is that even their announcements get delayed. LNS said they'd announce their next two planes last month, then delayed it to this month. And they still haven't made the announcement despite there only being 3 working days left. And this is just for an announcement, 2-3 lines of text in a forum post is all it takes. And even that is a couple months behind schedule. :lol: 

 

In any case, I too have to wonder what ED itself is up to. They progress at the rate of a 5-6 man indie developer making the game as a side job, but they have around 10x that many and are full time. And it isn't just cause they are doing a flight sim, cause BoS advances way faster than that. And it isn't the complex systems either. They really aren't that complex to begin with and it's all done in C++. I know enough C++ and enough about WW2 fighter systems to know it doesn't take much more than an afternoon to program every single button, switch and dial on a Bf-109. I don't know how long it takes to make a cockpit clickable, but the extra 12+ months the DCS guys spend seems a little excessive for that.

Sokol1

Sokol1

Posted
Posted

 

 

I find myself wondering why DCS WWII Europe 1944 picked Normandy as the area to map. Obviously the big event there in 1944 was D-Day except that wasn't an air battle. 

 

Probable because in Luthier ("RiP") vision there "muricans win the war"...   :)

AndyJWest

AndyJWest

Posted
Posted (edited)

I suspect Normandy was chosen so they could make a map of acceptable size without having to include major cities, and because a significant part of it is water - a lot less modelling to do...

 

Personally, I've rather lost interest in DCS WW2 - they don't seem to have any real focus, and I'm not entirely convinced that they are going to tackle some fundamental issues, like the AI behaviour and damage modelling not suiting the WW2 planeset. 

Edited by AndyJWest
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Probable because in Luthier ("RiP") vision there "muricans win the war"...   :)

In many ways they did :)

 

But still it has little to do with the reality of choices. I mean they had a Mustang and idea of a theater. They should stick to it. But than they made opposition out of the time frame ...

SharpeXB

SharpeXB

Posted
Posted

Well the modern stuff is sure cool anyways. NTTR and Hormuz and whatever else Leatherneck comes up with. That Mirage looks like big fun.

9./JG27golani79

9./JG27golani79

Posted
Posted

What's really funny [ ..]

 

... is, that no matter which game / genre or dev, every time a few elite community members know everything better than the developers themselves.

 

Just lol and not worth of any further commenting ..

Stig

Stig

Posted
Posted

In many ways they did :)

 

But still it has little to do with the reality of choices. I mean they had a Mustang and idea of a theater. They should stick to it. But than they made opposition out of the time frame ...

 

The Dora was in development before Luthier proposed DCS:WWII and the Normandy map. So for a  plausible scenario they should have chosen an autumn or winter map, the Low Countries/ NW Germany.

 

@ King Hrothgar

You also have to remember that DCS also has military contracts, which probably  takes most of their resources and where they make most of their money. 

 

On the whole I don't expect DCS to be a WWII sim like BoS and CloD. DCS and their 3rd party partners will always have more focus  on the plane modules than the historical scenario. 

Uufflakke

Uufflakke

Posted
Posted

Some 3rd party dev once posted a pic of a Corsair in DCS but I cant remember who.

 

I suppose you mean this screenie by Pman from the VEAO dev team.

 

38sh.jpg

Guest deleted@50488

Guest deleted@50488

Posted
Posted

Ok, this whole thread did it for me...

 

Instead of waiting for 1.5, I re-installed DCS 1.2.16 last night, and, know what ?  I'm addicted again :-), specially given the HUGE performance boost my new GTX 960 4GB card gives me where pushing the display setting to the higher marks still gives me between 60+ and 100+ fps !!!

 

Spent a full hour flying the K4 - delightful !!! And it's still WIP of course....

 

The ED / Belsimtek teams are involved in commercial / professional training projects, which, I am sure will take a good deal of their time...  I see ED as what I would like ELITE to be - ELITE Premium is still the best GA IFR flight simulator I ever used, but I am still waiting v9, and they're always too busy with their main stream market of FNPTs to get it ready for delivery :-/  At least in ED I just have to wait a few months between releases...

BeastyBaiter

BeastyBaiter

Posted
Posted

The Dora was in development before Luthier proposed DCS:WWII and the Normandy map. So for a  plausible scenario they should have chosen an autumn or winter map, the Low Countries/ NW Germany.

 

@ King Hrothgar

You also have to remember that DCS also has military contracts, which probably  takes most of their resources and where they make most of their money. 

 

On the whole I don't expect DCS to be a WWII sim like BoS and CloD. DCS and their 3rd party partners will always have more focus  on the plane modules than the historical scenario. 

 

Possibly, all I know is that their team size doesn't match their progress. There are some other things that may slow them down too. One of the VEAO guys recently mentioned that the reason the Hawk is in such terrible shape is because the programmer who made the systems left on bad terms and the code is a complete mess. ED could have a similar problem with DCS's core. But I don't think that excuses them, they did write it after all, even if it was back in the mid 1990's.

 

In any case, I think we should consider DCS WW2 and VEAO's stuff separately. ED's proposed WW2 modules are reasonably focused around 1944/45. The map doesn't fit the full list of planes, but it is an interesting area geographically. Their other in progress maps are also mismatched with planes. I think they just go for what they think will be pretty, and I'm fine with that. Dirt is dirt to me. I'm more interested in the new features like improved textures, 3d models and collidable trees. :)

 

VEAO is focused on the RAF from 1939 to present. I have serious doubts on their ability to deliver their wishlist of aircraft, but it does give the impression of far less focus than there is in DCS. Both ED and VEAO are highly focused, it's just VEAO is run by a RAF fanatic who doesn't care if his modules have content beyond takeoff and landing. Thanks to AI units and playable aircraft already in game (or in progress), much of it actually fits in reasonably well. It's only the WW2 planes that are horribly out of place and of those, the later models should fit in ok once ED gets some period AI units in (assuming they do).

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

 

 

The map doesn't fit the full list of planes, but it is an interesting area geographically.

As long as in Nevada map one will be able to find Area 51 an there will be Elvis / Ark of the Covenant I'm ok with that  :lol:

Chuck_Owl

Chuck_Owl

Posted
Posted

 Both ED and VEAO are highly focused, it's just VEAO is run by a RAF fanatic who doesn't care if his modules have content beyond takeoff and landing. 

 

I recently became part of the VEAO testing team... and knowing what I know, I think that statement is completely unfair and plain wrong. 

BeastyBaiter

BeastyBaiter

Posted
Posted

I can only judge based on their publicly announced plans. At present, they have 36 aircraft + "various spitfires" on their wishlist. Of those 36, 29+ are planes the UK has used in significance. Of the remaining 6-7, two are axis aircraft and the rest are either modern western European fighters or prototypes/oddballs. I think that qualifies as a fairly heavy focus on the UK. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with that if someone steps in to fill out the opposing aircraft ranks a little (preferably player, but at a minimum AI). But so far none have shown any interest in doing so. Ells228 has been asked directly about this, and his response was something along the lines of them not having any plans of making AI aircraft for their modules to fight. The reason being it was too much work and they didn't see a reason to. Perhaps you know something beyond that, but the above is what's public.

  • Upvote 1
SharpeXB

SharpeXB

Posted
Posted

Ells228 has been asked directly about this, and his response was something along the lines of them not having any plans of making AI aircraft for their modules to fight. The reason being it was too much work and they didn't see a reason to.

No AI aircraft to fight = Zero sales.

 

I think Leatherneck will be much more successful with their approach:

 

"Our goal with theaters is to not only build a great environment to immerse the player in the game world, but to also try and provide an appropriate framework for the aircraft we create.

To achieve this framework, we have to spend a lot of time creating AI Aircraft, Ground and Naval units, all of which represent a huge investment of time and effort.

Thus, we hope to avoid aircraft that are 'misplaced' in the wrong theater and environment. Naturally, the main campaign for each module will take place in their respective theater."

  • Upvote 1
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

No AI aircraft to fight = Zero sales.

 

I think Leatherneck will be much more successful with their approach:

 

"Our goal with theaters is to not only build a great environment to immerse the player in the game world, but to also try and provide an appropriate framework for the aircraft we create.

To achieve this framework, we have to spend a lot of time creating AI Aircraft, Ground and Naval units, all of which represent a huge investment of time and effort.

Thus, we hope to avoid aircraft that are 'misplaced' in the wrong theater and environment. Naturally, the main campaign for each module will take place in their respective theater."

Leatherneck on the other hand is going to make some AI aircraft.

 

But besides, they just delayed they news  : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2486565&postcount=1206

 

 

I can only judge based on their publicly announced plans. At present, they have 36 aircraft + "various spitfires" on their wishlist. Of those 36, 29+ are planes the UK has used in significance. Of the remaining 6-7, two are axis aircraft and the rest are either modern western European fighters or prototypes/oddballs. I think that qualifies as a fairly heavy focus on the UK. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with that if someone steps in to fill out the opposing aircraft ranks a little (preferably player, but at a minimum AI). But so far none have shown any interest in doing so. Ells228 has been asked directly about this, and his response was something along the lines of them not having any plans of making AI aircraft for their modules to fight. The reason being it was too much work and they didn't see a reason to. Perhaps you know something beyond that, but the above is what's public.

I once asked Pman if they were thinking on some Zeros or other stuff and he said they had a fixed plan, not much to change. But apparently they planned to make 3 Wildcats at once (F4F-3, F4F-4, FM-2). Quite a lot of attention given to the Allied machines.

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Well, atleast they give a lot of attention to their products, they are polishing that MiG-21 for long. That gives a good indication for future  ;)

9./JG27golani79

9./JG27golani79

Posted
Posted

Shouldnt take too long for it to be released now - 1.5 branch was already built.

 

 

 

As for the status of releasing the 1.5 Open Beta, we have good news: we created the 1.5 branch (release version) today. Just as soon as we complete smoke testing, we will release it.
Guest deleted@50488

Guest deleted@50488

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looking fwd to it....

 

I re-installed DCS a couple od days ago when I heard that 1.5 might be delayed...

 

Have been playing at the online servers, flying mostly the 109 K4 and the 190 D9. Great models, even if specially the K4 is still WIP.

 

But, for ww2 combats, there really is nothing that compares to Il2 BoS for me. And, while I appreciate the flight and systems dynamics in DCS, I consider that BoS stands at the very same level, and, what we do not get in terms of interaction with the systems like through clickable cockpits, we get in terms of the much better visuals, damage models and immersion.

 

They're both winners :-)

Edited by jcomm
AndyJWest

AndyJWest

Posted
Posted

The long-awaited 1.5 beta is finally available.  :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...